Last week's jury verdict sent shock waves through Michael Jackson
fans who were hoping to see concert promoter AEG Live held at least
partially responsible for Michael Jackson's death. Many expressed outrage at the verdict. At first blush, the jury verdict does seem odd.

The
jury was charged with answering 16 questions, in order, given to them
on a jury verdict form. If they answered any one of the first few
questions in the negative, then AEG Live would prevail and there would
be no need to answer the remaining questions.

The jury unanimously
answered the first question in favor of the Michael Jackson heirs: AEG
Live did hire Dr. Conrad Murray, the jury determined. This was a hotly
disputed issue, with AEG Live arguing that Michael Jackson had hired
the doctor himself. Michael Jackson's legal team cleared that first
hurdle.

Question two pertained to whether Dr. Murray was "unfit or
incompetent to perform the work for which he was hired." Based on the
criminal conviction and the fact that Dr. Murray administered propofol
to Michael Jackson in an unmonitored setting, contrary to medical and
ethical guidelines for its use, it would seem that this question would
have been an easy one for the jury to answer in the affirmative.

Instead,
the jury voted 10-2 that Dr. Murray was not "unfit or incompetent" when
he was hired. After the trial, the jury foreman said that if the
verdict form had used the word "ethical", the vote may have been
different. Instead, he said, the jury believed that because Dr. Murray
was licensed and graduated from an accredited college, he was not unfit
or incompetent.

This
takes a very narrow reading of the words "unfit or incompetent." Being
a properly educated and licensed doctor does not make one "fit," at
least in the minds of most people. Certainly, ethics can and should
play a part in it.

So does this mean the jury got it wrong? Not
so fast. While the attention has been placed on that particular
question because it was the one that triggered the verdict for AEG Live,
the next few questions would have made a verdict in favor of Michael
Jackson's mother and children unlikely, based on how the jury viewed the
evidence.

Even if Dr. Murray had been found to be "unfit or
incompetent," the next questions addressed whether AEG Live knew or
should have known about his unfitness and whether AEG Live's conduct was
a "substantial factor" in causing Michael Jackson's death. Based on
statements made to the media, it seems clear that the jury likely never
would answered these questions in favor of Katherine Jackson and her
grandchildren, even if they did answer the second question differently.

One
of the juror's pointed out how Michael Jackson was used to getting his
own way, and if Dr. Murray had not done what he wanted, Jackson would
have replaced him with another doctor who would have. Further, as AEG
Live attorneys pointed out throughout trial, the company did not know
the specifics of what was going on behind closed doors, between Jackson
and Dr. Murray.

This isn't to suggest that AEG Live was entirely
free of any blame -- especially if the e-mails that surfaced before
trial were indicative of how the company behaved. Select internal
company e-mails were leaked to the media
before the trial started, detailing how AEG Live executives e-mailed
each other about concerns over Michael Jackson's health, the immense
financial harm that would come if Michael Jackson didn't perform, and
the great respect that at least some at the company had for Dr. Murray.
In other words, concerns were raised, but the company wanted the show
to go on.

However, at trial, there were compelling arguments and
evidence presented from both sides. The jury had to balance Michael
Jackson's dangerous choices versus the financial pressure from a
corporation who wanted him to perform. In the end, Michael Jackson's
own behavior convinced the jury that AEG Live's conduct wasn't enough to
create legal responsibility for his death.

It's hard to say that
this wasn't a reasonable decision by the jury, in terms of how the law
looks at it. Our legal system has to trust juries to make tough
decisions like this, and then to accept their decisions (unless there
was a legal error committed along the way).

And for that very
reason, chances are good that the verdict will stand up if challenged.
The Michael Jackson legal team can attack it, both by asking the trial
judge to overturn the jury verdict, and by appealing and seeking a new
trial. Neither approach will likely work.

Our legal system is
built on the concept of letting a jury of our peers resolve disputes
after reviewing the evidence and listening to the testimony and lawyers'
arguments. If enough was presented by both sides so that a reasonable
person could decide in either direction, then the jury verdict should
stand.

That's why litigation can be so costly and risky. No one
ever knows what a jury will decide. It all depends on who is on that
particular jury, and what those jury members believe. This leads most
people and companies involved in court battles to settle, rather than
take the risk. AEG Live said it never considered settling, because it
always believed the jury would rule in its favor.

AEG's position
was very risky, however, and the jury easily could have decided
differently. And, certainly, AEG spent many millions of dollars in
legal fees defending the case. Most people going through litigation --
from estate feuds to wrongful death claims -- should think carefully
about settling and not taking on the risk and expense of a trial. No
one ever has a crystal ball to accurately predict the outcome.

In
this case, AEG Live was proven correct. Ultimately, the majority of the
jury members were not prepared to find AEG Live legally responsible in
light of Michael Jackson's own decisions. Regardless of how the jury
verdict questions were worded, nothing likely would have changed this
outcome based on how this particular jury felt about the evidence. And
there was enough evidence presented by AEG's attorneys to justify the
verdict.

So, legally, the jury was not "wrong". Even if Michael Jackson's fans think the verdict was not right.

Comments

Was The Michael Jackson Jury Verdict Wrong In Ruling For AEG?

Last week's jury verdict sent shock waves through Michael Jackson
fans who were hoping to see concert promoter AEG Live held at least
partially responsible for Michael Jackson's death. Many expressed outrage at the verdict. At first blush, the jury verdict does seem odd.

The
jury was charged with answering 16 questions, in order, given to them
on a jury verdict form. If they answered any one of the first few
questions in the negative, then AEG Live would prevail and there would
be no need to answer the remaining questions.

The jury unanimously
answered the first question in favor of the Michael Jackson heirs: AEG
Live did hire Dr. Conrad Murray, the jury determined. This was a hotly
disputed issue, with AEG Live arguing that Michael Jackson had hired
the doctor himself. Michael Jackson's legal team cleared that first
hurdle.

Twitter Updates

Legal Disclaimer

Legal Disclaimer

Nothing in this blog should be relied on as legal advice. The information contained herein does not create an attorney/client relationship. The articles posted are intended for entertainment and general information purposes only. Laws vary state by state. Anyone seeking legal advice for a specific situation should consult a qualified probate lawyer or similar qualified professional in the appropriate state.